• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Arizona ruling overturns conviction of felon carrying gun

AGENT J

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
80,422
Reaction score
29,075
Location
Pittsburgh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Arizona ruling overturns conviction of felon carrying gun

[h=1]Arizona ruling overturns conviction of felon carrying gun[/h]
Can police officers frisk anyone who appears to be carrying a gun? On Thursday, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that they cannot unless they think the person is engaging in criminal behavior and is armed and dangerous. As a result, the court overturned the conviction of a felon caught carrying a gun.According to court records, in October 2010, police officers saw Johnathon Serna talking to a woman on the street in a "gang neighborhood." When the woman walked away, they approached Serna, who they described as "very cooperative and polite."

Then one of the officers noticed a bulge in Serna's waistband and asked if he had a gun. Serna said he did, and the police told him to put his hands on his head and took the gun. When the police learned that Serna had prior felony convictions, making him a "prohibited possessor," they arrested him and charged him with misconduct with weapons.At trial, Serna's attorneys claimed that Serna's Fourth Amendment rights against illegal search and seizure had been violated, but the judge rejected the claim, and the Arizona Court of Appeals upheld his conviction.Serna was sentenced to 2 1/2 years in prison. According to Arizona Department of Corrections records, he did the time and was released in December 2013.But on Thursday, the Arizona Supreme Court threw out his sentence and his conviction.
Click to expand...
Back-up Links:
High Court: Police need
Court: Police need

Good ruling, I hope to see more gun rights restored and clarified across the nation. To many states infringe on this right in too many ways.
 
But felons still can't have guns...right?

The title is a bit confusing.
 
WCH said:
But felons still can't have guns...right?

The title is a bit confusing.
Click to expand...

In Arizona (as well as other states) you can apply to get your gun rights re-established after you serve your time.
 
WCH said:
But felons still can't have guns...right?

The title is a bit confusing.
Click to expand...

correct it is still against the law for certain criminals to have guns and that varies, which it shouldnt. It should have complete conformity nationally.

and i also agree the title and verbiage of the articles do make it confusing but this is simply about illegal search and seizure.
They guy being a felon is just extra story really.
 
azgreg said:
In Arizona (as well as other states) you can apply to get your gun rights re-established after you serve your time.
Click to expand...

Do you know if it still apply if you were convicted for a felony gun charge or domestic violence?
 
azgreg said:
In Arizona (as well as other states) you can apply to get your gun rights re-established after you serve your time.
Click to expand...

I didn't know this, but I like it. Although they shouldn't even have to apply. When a person commits a crime they are punished. When that punishment ends, their restrictions should go with it. These laws about felons owning guns, voting, trouble finding jobs or houses is bull**** to me.
 
AGENT J said:
Arizona ruling overturns conviction of felon carrying gun


Back-up Links:
High Court: Police need
Court: Police need

Good ruling, I hope to see more gun rights restored and clarified across the nation. To many states infringe on this right in too many ways.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with non-violent "felons" carrying a gun...

Besides, it doesn't take much these days to earn yourself a felony anyways...

Here in Illinois if you damage more than 500 bucks of property you're a felon and as far as I see it they will just make any minor "crime" a felony just so they can get the gun control they want....

The funny part is that 90% of felons aren't even dangerous people. Most "felons" are only felons for stupid stuff like drug convictions, DUI's and other non-violent acts that are "against the law."

IMO, I think everyone should have a gun - that way the real criminals who are violent will think twice before they try sticking someone up or committing a violent act. The way it is now most of these violent criminals have nothing to worry about because guns are so difficult to get legally so most people are easy targets.
 
americanwoman said:
Do you know if it still apply if you were convicted for a felony gun charge or domestic violence?
Click to expand...

Kreton said:
I didn't know this, but I like it. Although they shouldn't even have to apply. When a person commits a crime they are punished. When that punishment ends, their restrictions should go with it. These laws about felons owning guns, voting, trouble finding jobs or houses is bull**** to me.
Click to expand...

You can apply, but you are not guaranteed to have your rights restored. In some cases it could take up to 10 years.
 
Kreton said:
I didn't know this, but I like it. Although they shouldn't even have to apply. When a person commits a crime they are punished. When that punishment ends, their restrictions should go with it. These laws about felons owning guns, voting, trouble finding jobs or houses is bull**** to me.
Click to expand...

I agree and disagree
i do think that logically when the time is served rights should be restored

then i think what about a person who killed or raped muiltiple people? do I really want them to have a gun? but i guess step one would be why is he out if he cant be trusted?

in SOME cases i would find it tricky but the solution is properly they should be out in the first place, so again i basically agree.
 
azgreg said:
In Arizona (as well as other states) you can apply to get your gun rights re-established after you serve your time.
Click to expand...

I'd also like to add that young adults make mistakes (18-21) and the mistakes they make shouldn't follow them around for the rest of their lives just because they did something stupid as a kid just as long as it wasn't a "serious" offense like murder or armed robbery etc.. People do change - hell I was a super pro government progressive when I was 18 even to the point of agreeing with socialism, but obviously that changed.. Sometimes people just do stupid stuff when they're younger and their past should have absolutely no effect on what they do or want to do 10-15 years down the road just as long as they keep a clean record.
 
WCH said:
But felons still can't have guns...right?

The title is a bit confusing.
Click to expand...

They can and do have guns - they just can't generally legally walk into a gun store and buy them, but there are other ways around that if you know the right people or in the right crowed....
 
I think they did the right thing. However, perhaps that law needs some revision.
 
AGENT J said:
I agree and disagree
i do think that logically when the time is served rights should be restored

then i think what about a person who killed or raped muiltiple people? do I really want them to have a gun? but i guess step one would be why is he out if he cant be trusted?

in SOME cases i would find it tricky but the solution is properly they should be out in the first place, so again i basically agree.
Click to expand...

Oh I agree. If someone is convicted of multiple instances of rape or murder slim chances they are out of prison and not on parole. (I am ok with people on parole having their rights limited.)
 
Mr.Nick said:
I'd also like to add that young adults make mistakes (18-21) and the mistakes they make shouldn't follow them around for the rest of their lives just because they did something stupid as a kid just as long as it wasn't a "serious" offense like murder or armed robbery etc.. People do change - hell I was a super pro government progressive when I was 18 even to the point of agreeing with socialism, but obviously that changed.. Sometimes people just do stupid stuff when they're younger and their past should have absolutely no effect on what they do or want to do 10-15 years down the road just as long as they keep a clean record.
Click to expand...
I like the clean record bit (snort)

I know of someone who has many dui's, here in SIN, 4th. is a felony, this idiot never learned his lesson, on his most recent dui, he had a firearm in his possession, ooooops. He recently got out of Mendota, doesn't have a job, isn't gainfully employed (who knows why?) and his children are in a grandparent's custody.

I'm waiting for the day he'll finally be free, and out of rehab, and commit his next felony.
 
Kreton said:
Oh I agree. If someone is convicted of multiple instances of rape or murder slim chances they are out of prison and not on parole. (I am ok with people on parole having their rights limited.)
Click to expand...

Well there are plenty of crazy violent people out there that did commit murder or rape but just plead to a lesser charge, or evidence was thrown out making it impossible to convict a true evil person.

Our judicial system is hardly the best in the world and lawyers are generally slime considering they treat the "system" like some sort of game...

I've seen completely innocent people go to prison or held in prison when all the evidence proves the individual was innocent, while I have seen straight up killers walk or plead to lesser charges.... In our judicial system it's really not about what you did - it's about who you know. That is why the super rich who can afford lawyers walk away from some pretty serious crimes and why the poor who have the public defenders get the book thrown at them.... It is certainly not right, but at least there are a few organizations out there such as "The Innocence Project" that do care and work to correct this injustice.
 
AJiveMan said:
I like the clean record bit (snort)

I know of someone who has many dui's, here in SIN, 4th. is a felony, this idiot never learned his lesson, on his most recent dui, he had a firearm in his possession, ooooops. He recently got out of Mendota, doesn't have a job, isn't gainfully employed (who knows why?) and his children are in a grandparent's custody.

I'm waiting for the day he'll finally be free, and out of rehab, and commit his next felony.
Click to expand...

There's bad people out there obviously who are career criminals - who never learn their lesson, however there are plenty of decent people that got caught doing something stupid (especially when they were younger) but are hardly criminals...

Lets also not forget the people who are completely innocent and who just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time...

You see, cops/detectives are lazy people and they don't honestly care if they get the right guy - their main goal is to close a case and get a pat on their back....

Lookup Lake County Illinois..... These clowns actually held a father (his name is Jerry Hobbs) for the murder of his own daughter for 5 years, despite the fact that the DNA they found at the scene was that of a serial killer who murdered/raped two other woman in Virginia (he was in the Navy) and the damn prosecutors knew all about this DNA but hid it from the defense for 3 damn years... The whole time they knew they had the wrong guy but didn't even care...

I can give you 10 more stories from my county that are similar....

I suppose my point is that the judicial system is and can be just as evil (if not more) than the alleged perpetrators of crimes...

I agree tho, being a deadbeat with 4 DUI's is just not right.....
 
Kreton said:
Oh I agree. If someone is convicted of multiple instances of rape or murder slim chances they are out of prison and not on parole. (I am ok with people on parole having their rights limited.)
Click to expand...

exactly, its a grey area and im sure it could always use tweeking.
its gonna be circumstantial.

a felon convicted of stealing stamps isnt going to concern people as much as a serial rapist. its tricky when people just use the term felon all it buy its self
 
Mr.Nick said:
Well there are plenty of crazy violent people out there that did commit murder or rape but just plead to a lesser charge, or evidence was thrown out making it impossible to convict a true evil person.

Our judicial system is hardly the best in the world and lawyers are generally slime considering they treat the "system" like some sort of game...

I've seen completely innocent people go to prison or held in prison when all the evidence proves the individual was innocent, while I have seen straight up killers walk or plead to lesser charges.... In our judicial system it's really not about what you did - it's about who you know. That is why the super rich who can afford lawyers walk away from some pretty serious crimes and why the poor who have the public defenders get the book thrown at them.... It is certainly not right, but at least there are a few organizations out there such as "The Innocence Project" that do care and work to correct this injustice.
Click to expand...

I agree with all of that. Not sure how it pertains to my post you quoted about "felons" who have served thier time having their rights restored. But I agree.
 
Kreton said:
I didn't know this, but I like it. Although they shouldn't even have to apply. When a person commits a crime they are punished. When that punishment ends, their restrictions should go with it. These laws about felons owning guns, voting, trouble finding jobs or houses is bull**** to me.
Click to expand...

Especially considering how many peaceful "drug felons" we have....
 
Mr.Nick said:
There's bad people out there obviously who are career criminals - who never learn their lesson, however there are plenty of decent people that got caught doing something stupid (especially when they were younger) but are hardly criminals...

Lets also not forget the people who are completely innocent and who just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time...

You see, cops/detectives are lazy people and they don't honestly care if they get the right guy - their main goal is to close a case and get a pat on their back....

Lookup Lake County Illinois..... These clowns actually held a father (his name is Jerry Hobbs) for the murder of his own daughter for 5 years, despite the fact that the DNA they found at the scene was that of a serial killer who murdered/raped two other woman in Virginia (he was in the Navy) and the damn prosecutors knew all about this DNA but hid it from the defense for 3 damn years... The whole time they knew they had the wrong guy but didn't even care...

I can give you 10 more stories from my county that are similar....

I suppose my point is that the judicial system is and can be just as evil (if not more) than the alleged perpetrators of crimes...

I agree tho, being a deadbeat with 4 DUI's is just not right.....
Click to expand...

DUI isn't really considered a criminal offense, is it. It's a victim-less offense, until an innocent person is killed.
 
Henry David said:
Especially considering how many peaceful "drug felons" we have....
Click to expand...

Yeah, the feds rounded up those gangster disciples a couple of days ago in and around Chicago.
 
DVSentinel said:
That court needs a swift kick in the ass.
Click to expand...

why?
do you support illegal search and seizure?
arr you not for gun rights and property rights?
 
AGENT J said:
why?
do you support illegal search and seizure?
arr you not for gun rights and property rights?
Click to expand...

A bulge at the waste-band that looks like the possibility of a gun is called "probable cause". Also, they didn't search him until they had asked him and he admitted to having one. At that point, they should of asked for his concealed permit and if he didn't have one, taken it from him and arrested him.

Read the article you posted. "
Then one of the officers noticed a bulge in Serna's waistband and asked if he had a gun. Serna said he did, and the police told him to put his hands on his head and took the gun. When the police learned that Serna had prior felony convictions, making him a "prohibited possessor," they arrested him and charged him with misconduct with weapons."

Easy probable cause, no illegal search since he answered the question, admitted to possession and they took the gun off of him, probably for their own safety, while doing the computer check, actual "seizure" didn't take place until they arrested him and took it as evidence. It would be illegal seizure only if they had taken it and did not return it after the background/computer check, if it didn't tell them he was a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. The charge should of been felon in possession, not misconduct with weapons. There is absolutely nothing wrong with what they did, except maybe not asking if he had a permit/CCA.
 
DVSentinel said:
A bulge at the waste-band that looks like the possibility of a gun is called "probable cause". Also, they didn't search him until they had asked him and he admitted to having one. At that point, they should of asked for his concealed permit and if he didn't have one, taken it from him and arrested him.
Read the article you posted. "

Then one of the officers noticed a bulge in Serna's waistband and asked if he had a gun. Serna said he did, and the police told him to put his hands on his head and took the gun. When the police learned that Serna had prior felony convictions, making him a "prohibited possessor," they arrested him and charged him with misconduct with weapons."

Easy probable cause, no illegal search since he answered the question, admitted to possession and they took the gun off of him, probably for their own safety, while doing the computer check, actual "seizure" didn't take place until they arrested him and took it as evidence. It would be illegal seizure only if they had taken it and did not return it after the background/computer check, if it didn't tell them he was a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. The charge should of been felon in possession, not misconduct with weapons. There is absolutely nothing wrong with what they did, except maybe not asking if he had a permit/CCA.
Click to expand...

reading the articular is what makes me think its a good rulling LMAO
you can want it the other way if you want but theres nothing you can post to change anything for me. Theres ZERO logic or rational youll ever be able to post to justify bulge = probably cause, thats crap lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom